Sneak Attacks/Death Attacks

[Hackmaster]

After reading this in the DM Questions and answers I began to realize this may be a worse problem then I had thought and that maybe some are not sure how to RP the players that have these abilities. So I am now writing up an example of how this happened to me the ugly word of meta-game and how I think such special attacks should be thought of.

Kah'ruzah has had the problem with folks not reacting properly to his abilities. The most prominent time was during a PvP match. During the time he fought 3 half-orc players. I had killed one who was killing a unarmed half-orc at the time I walked up to him in plain sight with sword and shield in hand, well while engaged with this half-orc it was automatically giving me flanking attacks which show up as sneak attack over my head because he was still in the process of killing the unarmed Half-orc. I was not actually back stabbing half-orc but the game mechanics was taking into account another person was on him and so it gave me the sneak attacks, nothing I could do about this thats just the way it works in game.

Later I was accused by many that I was sneak attacking the half-orc and backstabbing him like a coward as if I had actually tried to do so when I actually walked up in plain sight and went about 4 rounds with him. In actuality I did nothing of the sort but the game did give me sneak attacks floating above my head.

This of course is meta-gaming. A so-called "cowardly" attack and back stabbing would actually require me to be stealthed, sneak up behind a bloke, and stab him in the back. At the very least a person should see a rogue or assassin come out of stealth suddenly and attack someone to be said that person snuck up on them and stabbed them in a sneaky and perhaps cowardly way. The flanking maneuver and such is taking a opportunity for a weakness in the other players defense or a well placed blow, it is NOT a backstab as 2nd edition and 1st edition DnD did. Back then a thief never got a bonus except if it was an actual backstab hence the common mistake some people make about this. 3rd edition took a different approach in this.

The other two half-orcs that fought Kah'ruzah one had a level of Rogue and was also gaining sneak attack against me while flanking me but he was not accused of being cowardly. I just rolled with the punches but likely I should have reminded them later as they accused me how a sneak attack works in 3rd edition.

One must remember though, if you are going stealth and attacking monsters unawares, then coming out of it for a sudden attack on a creature well I think a player has the right to think you are a bit shady. I have seen many do this I did it with Kah'ruzah in the past on adventures. When a player is sneaking up on a monster, NPC, or PC it looks all rather awkward in game mechanics. In PnP you imagine a quick move to the next shadow, standing still when someone is near, stepping lightly...all that sort of thing....it would also be meta-gaming if you were to assume you were not doing all this while approaching the monsters and to expect your party members not to notice this sort of behavior. If you are cackling, smirking, or bragging after a kill in this manner then folks are gunna think you are not right.

They would not know you are an assassin for sure, or even evil for that matter. If anyone has seen the 13th warrior when the vikings snuck through the cave and attacked the Ven by surprise who thought they were evil or cowardly? I am fairly confident that was not peoples first thought.

Another thief or assassin may be able to note this subtle skill a little easier through observation. Other folk would have to see in plain sight a sudden attack from behind that was brutal and nobody especially the victim knew was coming. I have never seen even the most LG of characters have the slightest trouble with a rogue who sneak attacks in combat at the noble knights side. While the rogue is on your side he is a valuable member of the team and is never chastised for the sneak attack. Stick that same guy by himself and suddenly he is a coward who can't fight like a man heh

[TermaForever]

On a server I use to play on, we always had the same problem. The word sneak attack was stuck in people's head as being a sneaky, underhanded, strike from behind kind of attack (in IC and in OOC). This was especially true of evil character who were killed by good rouges.

For a good while I had a fighter/rouge/weapon master who started out CN but through rp eventually became LG (and a knight no less). In his case the rouge bit was more of a set of skills and such he had learned surviving on his own yada yada yada (back story and rp wise it made sense). Naturally he had sneak attacks, and naturally if we as a group were attacked by an opposing group in pvp and I defeated my foe (as I did on more than one occasion) I would go to assist a comrade and later be accused of being 'dishonorable' because of the sneak attack floating over my head (we won't get into the fact that it was usually the same person who took fighter/cleric/wm just so that he could have 50 million Greater Restoration scrolls).

Eventually Lawful Good rouges were banned on the basis that "lawful good characters would never sneak up on someone and attack them (ie. because of sneak attacks)" a decision greatly endorsed by people who primarily played evil characters who stood to gain from this restriction. This was an unfortunate case where the DMs (particularlly the Admin) saw things from a sort of meta-game stand point (not to mention he showed complete ignorance of DnD rules occasionally, as confirmed to be by two friends of mine who are both long time PnP dms). In there ideas, because the word sneak attack was attached, it couldn't be anything but a 'sneak up form behind dishonorable blow by a stealthy person (funny thing was they said it wasn't 'lawful' yet they didn't say anything about LN and LE)

Anyway, the point of that rant is that I agree people need to stop rping by the engine and start rping what it is. A sneak attack can mean many things. Maybe you did sneak up. Maybe you simply had an open shot. The writing is one the wall: we need to stop reading the writing over our heads.

[Driderman]

Post concerning paladins and death/sneak attack transplanted from the DM questions and answers topic where it did not seem to be valued much ;D
Bear over with any grammatical/syntax inconsistencies as it was a specific reply to a specific person at the time of posting

First of all, there is no such thing as "an evil fighting style" as far as I see it, barring perhaps fighting styles drawing on powers of Divine Evil. Which the Death Attack do not. Realistically speaking, a person trained in the ways of Death Attack could be neutral, perhaps even good aligned. Its simply that game mechanics doesn't allow for it

Secondly, I believe part of the reason why detect evil is not allowed is simply that it does more harm than good, and is too troublesome to manage seeing as the measures for shielding your alignment are not available either. Paladins will just have to make do with all their other special abilities and when dealing with evil characters make their judgements based on observations like everyone else.

Thirdly, simply because a paladin may not lie and should always help those in need does not mean he can not withold information or mistrust those who pretend to be in need of help, as long as it benefits the greater good. Also, I believe that even a character with an evil alignment is entitled to a paladins help, unless it of course is in doing evil deeds.
Take for example a Lawful Evil regent of some kind who charges his paladin subordinate with the task of hunting down two poachers of the kings game and lay upon them the harshest legal sentencing possible for such a crime: Death. There would be no arguments for the paladin not to obey such an order, despite the fact that said poachers were merely trying to get food for their starving families.

Paladins may be paragons of virtue and righteousness, but they are not infallible.

Fourth, some of the text messages pertaining to actions taken in the game may possibly be used for furthering the roleplaying element. Fx: Critical hit ("Ohh, you smacked him real good there mate, try and go for the other eye next") or some such, but many of the text messages are merely techical information regarding the rules system. Just because it says somebody uses an ability doesn't necessarily mean you recognize that ability. Another example is the language widgets, just because it says "speaks in X language" when activated doesn't necessarily mean you know what language that is.

Finally: A paladin may very well disapprove of fighting techniques such as Death Attack. I know my paladin characters would if I had any. But that would most likely mean they would disapprove of other dishonorable fighting techniques, such as regular sneak attack, disarm and knockdown. Paladins are in my opinion much akin to the ideal of chivalric knight, so they fight fair. Fair meaning no ranged weapons as the opponents are unable to defend themselves, letting the opponent get his weapon if he drops it and giving quarter to probably the most heinous of villains if said villains swear never to harm an innocent soul again ( second time around there'll probably be no quarter given of course )

[Paragon]

I never had a problem with sneak attacks. A sneak attack can be merciful, a death attack is based on paralyzing your opponent painfully doesn't seem that way to me.

I don't like your extremist all or nothing philosophy, if death attacks are bad, so are sneak attacks, knockdown and WAR! WAR IS BAD! Meh.

In my oh-so-humble opinion, in real life if you are forced to defend another person, or yourself, so that you can live to defend others, nothing that you do to survive in a fight is wrong. For a fantasy paladin, on the other hand, seeing someone cut an artery so that their opponent stands still long enough to stick your dagger in their eyes, might, just maybe be offensive.

Also, paladins are not mindless followers of their lords. That's a task best left to the samurai. If the lord shows a pattern of behavior that is ruthless, that's a surefire way to get deposed. Also, I don't think that a paladin would murder a family of poachers that are weak and begging for their lives. He might deliver them to the lord, if he thought that they would have justice, but it's unlikely that he would uphold an unjust law that starved peasants then killed them for stealing.

[DM Richard (Retired)]

I have a question for you to think about...

How does one tell if an attack is a:

(1) 35 point damage sneak attack
(2) 35 point damage critical hit
(3) 35 point damage death attack

if the person is using a weapon that has a chance of paralyzing the opponent?

Follow up questions...

Who decides the looks of the actions behind the attack?

Should people be allowed to metagame knowing a character did a sneak attack or death attack when they have no choice in turning it off?

Think about those questions.

[Aodhan the Unusual]

Somewhat along these lines, please don't metagame character classes and levels either when logging in. This is almost as bad, in my opinion, as judging people based on sneak attacks and so on. After all, there's a reason the challenge rating has been disabled on this server. So that people will stop judging people on mechanics and metagaming difficulties and just roleplaying it out.

[Driderman]

paragon said:

I never had a problem with sneak attacks. A sneak attack can be merciful, a death attack is based on paralyzing your opponent painfully doesn't seem that way to me.

I don't like your extremist all or nothing philosophy, if death attacks are bad, so are sneak attacks, knockdown and WAR! WAR IS BAD! Meh.

In my oh-so-humble opinion, in real life if you are forced to defend another person, or yourself, so that you can live to defend others, nothing that you do to survive in a fight is wrong. For a fantasy paladin, on the other hand, seeing someone cut an artery so that their opponent stands still long enough to stick your dagger in their eyes, might, just maybe be offensive.

Also, paladins are not mindless followers of their lords. That's a task best left to the samurai. If the lord shows a pattern of behavior that is ruthless, that's a surefire way to get deposed. Also, I don't think that a paladin would murder a family of poachers that are weak and begging for their lives. He might deliver them to the lord, if he thought that they would have justice, but it's unlikely that he would uphold an unjust law that starved peasants then killed them for stealing.

Man, relax. I didn't say that you MUST disapprove of techniques, I mere said that disapproving of underhanded tactics like sneak attack might also very well mean disapproving of other combat tactics which could be considered dishonorable by characters bound by a very strict code of behaviour. It's a thin line between stabbing someone in the eye or whatnot and kicking his feet out from under him, in terms of honorable combat.
Personally I think that whether the attack is "merciful" or not has very little to do with how a paladin views it in terms of honorable or dishonorable. Its not as if you control every strike with perfect precision in melee combat, whether righteous crusader or not, so it's probably more than likely than most paladins have inflicted wounds which could be consider less than merciful in the course of their careers.

As for following the orders of their liege, I believe that is a thing that would differ wildly based on which deity the paladin in question served. But I also believe that adhering to a creed of Lawful and Good does not necessarily mean that one takes precedence over the other. Thus, a paladin may very well have to do bad things in the name of Good

[Paragon]

driderman said:

paragon said:

I never had a problem with sneak attacks. A sneak attack can be merciful, a death attack is based on paralyzing your opponent painfully doesn't seem that way to me.

I don't like your extremist all or nothing philosophy, if death attacks are bad, so are sneak attacks, knockdown and WAR! WAR IS BAD! Meh.

In my oh-so-humble opinion, in real life if you are forced to defend another person, or yourself, so that you can live to defend others, nothing that you do to survive in a fight is wrong. For a fantasy paladin, on the other hand, seeing someone cut an artery so that their opponent stands still long enough to stick your dagger in their eyes, might, just maybe be offensive.

Also, paladins are not mindless followers of their lords. That's a task best left to the samurai. If the lord shows a pattern of behavior that is ruthless, that's a surefire way to get deposed. Also, I don't think that a paladin would murder a family of poachers that are weak and begging for their lives. He might deliver them to the lord, if he thought that they would have justice, but it's unlikely that he would uphold an unjust law that starved peasants then killed them for stealing.

Man, relax. I didn't say that you MUST disapprove of techniques, I mere said that disapproving of underhanded tactics like sneak attack might also very well mean disapproving of other combat tactics which could be considered dishonorable by characters bound by a very strict code of behaviour. It's a thin line between stabbing someone in the eye or whatnot and kicking his feet out from under him, in terms of honorable combat.
Personally I think that whether the attack is "merciful" or not has very little to do with how a paladin views it in terms of honorable or dishonorable. Its not as if you control every strike with perfect precision in melee combat, whether righteous crusader or not, so it's probably more than likely than most paladins have inflicted wounds which could be consider less than merciful in the course of their careers.

As for following the orders of their liege, I believe that is a thing that would differ wildly based on which deity the paladin in question served. But I also believe that adhering to a creed of Lawful and Good does not necessarily mean that one takes precedence over the other. Thus, a paladin may very well have to do bad things in the name of Good

Man...I am so relaxed that you would not believe. Imagine my voice, it's soothing and calm, (and maybe a tiny bit condescending.)

Yeah, I do believe that paladins sometimes accidentally hit folks in areas that have the same effect as an assassin's strike. Groin wounds and such, it happens. An assassin aims for the areas that will paralyze and disable their opponent every time. Now you can give a silly example about a magic weapon paralyzing someone, but honestly, I've never seen a weapon that does a death attack. (There is a weapon called Fist of the Legion, but that stuns and I imagine that's more of blunt sort of attack, than a bloody assassin technique.)

I used to be very interested in the sorts of things that disable the human body. There is nothing that I know of that will paralyze a person in combat that isn't likely to cause permanent damage as well, (with the exception of maybe electrical disruption.) Visually, a person that is causing suffering, with every single hit, (and I don't mean regular knife wound suffering, I mean the kind of suffering that feels like someone has taken a pair of pliers to your funny bone,) is going to stand out on the battlefield like a bloody thumb. (I'm anticipating someone making an argument about grappling and chokeholds here.)

As for Law and Good, quite simply put, paladins don't get a skill called "smite chaos." That implies a precedence. I don't think that paladins serve unjust laws, no matter what. They serve the law and will of their god, be it Tyr, Torm, Ilmater, Helm, Mystra, Bane etc, etc. Their lord and king's will comes second to that. They are after all paragons of righteousness.

My argument is a moot point, however, since the DM's, in all of their glorious wisdom, have already decided this issue. ;D

[Talus]

Just to clear something up here. The paralyzing effect of Death Attack only happens if the person attacked is not already in combat. If they are in combat it is treated as a normal sneak attack.

[DM Richard (Retired)]

"Yeah, I do believe that paladins sometimes accidentally hit folks in areas that have the same effect as an assassin's strike. Groin wounds and such, it happens. An assassin aims for the areas that will paralyze and disable their opponent every time. Now you can give a silly example about a magic weapon paralyzing someone, but honestly, I've never seen a weapon that does a death attack."

Call it a silly example if you will, but when I was playing on another server an assassin I was traveling with managed to paralyze our opponent. She told me the victim was paralyzed by the spell on her sword. Since there are magical swords (my sword dazed my opponents) I believed her. You have no idea how many shops I searched looking for a sword like hers. I had no reason to suspect she lied to me.

So I don't think it is such a silly example unless you meta-game.


"Visually, a person that is causing suffering, with every single hit, (and I don't mean regular knife wound suffering, I mean the kind of suffering that feels like someone has taken a pair of pliers to your funny bone,) is going to stand out on the battlefield like a bloody thumb."

Like DM Hemlock said even though every attack shows the death attack words none of those attacks are really death attacks.

The only death attack an assassin gets is the FIRST attack of the combat if THEY are the first to attack AND the creature doesn't see them before they attack. Assassins are very limited in their death attack ability.

A regular fighter has more of a chance of the type attack you describe then an assassin. The feat "called shot" is an attack that is meant to cripple a person and is intentionally used by the player.

[Lokarn]

Just to Clarify the original post... Kah'ruzah Killed Grush'nak, now I know that he called Kah un honorable but it was in the sence that Grush'nak believes people should not interfear with his fights, atleast untill he has finished it. To him joining into combat before he has finished his first oponent is cowardly, as he can't defend both attacks.... but he is selfish and has no qualms about doing it the other way around, helping his buddies..... ;D Afterall...... he only cares about himself. So in that case.... the game mechanics of the sneak attacks had nothing to do with it. Just his own thoughts on being blindsided in what he thought was a one on one fight.

......yes....I play him too....*evil grin*

[catmage]

driderman said:

As for following the orders of their liege, I believe that is a thing that would differ wildly based on which deity the paladin in question served. But I also believe that adhering to a creed of Lawful and Good does not necessarily mean that one takes precedence over the other. Thus, a paladin may very well have to do bad things in the name of Good

I don't have the sourcebooks in front of me, but I'm fairly sure that paladins aren't allowed to do anything evil knowingly. And if they do, say from being compeled to do so by a mental attack, they lose the ability to do anything divinely granted, such as use spells, turn, or smite evil, until he has recieved the effects of an attonement spell cast by a divine caster of his own faith. Being a paladin makes you an elite. Most all faiths have fighters, and a fighter can serve tyr and be lawful good, in service of Tyr. As a fighter, he's allowed some leeway, and could do something morally unsound in the name of good, though if he does it too much, he won't find himself compatible with his faith for long. A paladin of Tyr, however, has no such room for error. He can not do something wicked without consquences, even if his purpose was benign. That's the burden of the divine, and if I had my way, all clerics, divine champions, and blackguards would have similiar rp penalties.

I know clerics can't be remade as fighters, since the non-magic aspects are quite different, but a properly played cleric would be willing to give up casting if they commit an act at odds with their faith, because the same as the paladin is the sword of the deity, the cleric is His word, and must therefore seek to act as there god would dictate. If a priest of Cyric decides that killing is wrong, he loses his spells because Cyric would not abide such weakness. A Tyrran cleric that fixes a trial to ensure that the evil person is found guilty, even if there is no real proof, should also lose spells, because they are not acting in a just way, even though they have a good reason for ensuring Car the Eater of Puppies and Defiler of Maidens is hung, because it's a two way street, and if they fix it so Car is killed for a crime he didn't commit, wicked as he is, they have no right to complain when they're hung for murdering Cathy the noblewoman's daughter and face a similiarly fixed jury.

[Munroe]

catmage said:

driderman said:

As for following the orders of their liege, I believe that is a thing that would differ wildly based on which deity the paladin in question served. But I also believe that adhering to a creed of Lawful and Good does not necessarily mean that one takes precedence over the other. Thus, a paladin may very well have to do bad things in the name of Good

I don't have the sourcebooks in front of me, but I'm fairly sure that paladins aren't allowed to do anything evil knowingly. And if they do, say from being compeled to do so by a mental attack, they lose the ability to do anything divinely granted, such as use spells, turn, or smite evil, until he has recieved the effects of an attonement spell cast by a divine caster of his own faith. Being a paladin makes you an elite. Most all faiths have fighters, and a fighter can serve tyr and be lawful good, in service of Tyr. As a fighter, he's allowed some leeway, and could do something morally unsound in the name of good, though if he does it too much, he won't find himself compatible with his faith for long. A paladin of Tyr, however, has no such room for error. He can not do something wicked without consquences, even if his purpose was benign. That's the burden of the divine, and if I had my way, all clerics, divine champions, and blackguards would have similiar rp penalties.

I know clerics can't be remade as fighters, since the non-magic aspects are quite different, but a properly played cleric would be willing to give up casting if they commit an act at odds with their faith, because the same as the paladin is the sword of the deity, the cleric is His word, and must therefore seek to act as there god would dictate. If a priest of Cyric decides that killing is wrong, he loses his spells because Cyric would not abide such weakness. A Tyrran cleric that fixes a trial to ensure that the evil person is found guilty, even if there is no real proof, should also lose spells, because they are not acting in a just way, even though they have a good reason for ensuring Car the Eater of Puppies and Defiler of Maidens is hung, because it's a two way street, and if they fix it so Car is killed for a crime he didn't commit, wicked as he is, they have no right to complain when they're hung for murdering Cathy the noblewoman's daughter and face a similiarly fixed jury.

Clerics are simply not watched as closely as paladins. Paladins are watched very very closely (presumably by celestials in service to the gods) to make sure they don't violate their faith. Clerics are not monitored as closely because the purpose they serve is not as rigid. The main job of a cleric of any god is to help maintain the power of that god. Different clerics do this different ways. Some clerics do this by encouraging worship of their deity while others maintain their god's power through terror. The gods of Toril are not omnipotent or omnipresent, so they do not see and hear all. That means either celestials monitor their clergy and other divine spellcasters or an innate system built into divine magic provides the monitoring mechanism. If celestials monitor the clergy then that would seem somewhat redundant. If there are enough celestials that one is watching each cleric all the time, then the celestials would just be clerics themselves and serve Toril directly. So I lean more toward the "innate system built into divine magic" idea, which allows clerics some freedom to interpret what their gods desire of them and how best to serve their deities.

As the system allows for one-step alignment for clerics, the system does not necessarily require that the cleric follow their deity's mindset to the letter. In fact, some Faerunian institutions hold institutional opinions that are different from those views held by their deity. For instance, Torm likes Helm but their churches do not get along. Kossuth is True Neutral but his church is predominately Lawful Neutral. Of course, other than granting spells to his faithful, Kossuth rarely takes any involvement in the issues of Faerun. Lathander's church is governed by his paladins and his clergy so they find themselves at odds sometimes because Lathanderite clergy may be NG or CG and have different ideas than the LG paladins as to the ways the church should progress. Mystra (who is NG since the time of troubles) still has some LN clerics in her ranks because they served the previous Mystra before the Godswar when she was LN. Kelemvor (who is LN and has paladins) has some evil clergy in his service because when he gained godhood and the portfolio of Death, some of Myrkul's clergy converted to Kelemvor.

The point being that clerics are not monitored as closely as paladins. Paladins may not be monitored all that closely either, but like clerics they may be governed by "an innate system built into divine magic," and that system may simply be more rigid for paladins. After all, Sune is allowed paladins but her paladins still must be LG despite that being two steps from her alignment. A druid who wears metal armour loses divine spellcasting and spell-like abilities for the duration of wearing the armour and 24 hours thereafter. Does that mean the Nature deities are watching every single druid all the time? No. "Innate system built into divine magic." Each divine class has an innate system that governs them because the gods themselves do not watch them all the time. Some systems are more rigid than others.

[Hackmaster]

Grush'nak may have called Kah a coward I don't know. If he did it was an IC reason. I don't recall Grush'nak ever saying I was coward for back stabbing him. He was mad cause I defended the other half-orc instead of him. It was another half-orc that actually ran around desperately through town trying to claim Kah a coward and a back stabber. I accepted this as that Half-orc IC trying to spread misinformation. Thats how I RP'ed the situation. It seemed like he took the fact that sneak attack was flying over my head over and over as a cowardly backstab move which I can't control. If he meant misinformation then it makes more sense cause Kah never did in fact backstab Grush'nak he flanked him in the open. None of this ever bothered me though regardless of his reasons even if it was an honest mistake I am just using the example of how easy it is to make that mistake.

Just for people's information to help better understand the sneak attack maneuver, it will give a rogue or assassin a sneak attack for these reasons: Anything that provokes an attack of opportunity, being flat footed, flanking attack, blinded, paralyzed/stunned, prone, and stealthed sneak attack/backstab. 90% of attacks come from another thing other than the stealth attack which usually is only gained one time at the beginning of a battle assuming you are doing it in the first place.

[Quadhund/Greenhouse]

dirkperfect said:

Just for people's information to help better understand the sneak attack maneuver, it will give a rogue or assassin a sneak attack for these reasons: Anything that provokes an attack of opportunity, being flat footed, flanking attack, blinded, paralyzed/stunned, prone, and stealthed sneak attack/backstab. 90% of attacks come from another thing other than the stealth attack which usually is only gained one time at the beginning of a battle assuming you are doing it in the first place.

I'm pretty sure Attacks of Opportunity do not provoke sneak attacks unless it is an AoO from something that makes you flatfooted.

Given these requirements for a sneak attack to be performed and the fact that the enemy must have a discernable anatomy (and be living), this is how I view sneak attack: it is not but rather surprise attacks that allows you to strike harder and more accurately.

Being flatfooted means being "out of combat", not ready, or unable to move. A flat footed sneak attack to me is like a sucker punch. Flex your stomach muscles and have someone punch you, now unflex and have them punch you. Likewise stand erect with knees unbent and have someone push you from behind. Now bend your knees, spread your feet and face the person who pushes you.

Being flanked, you are unable to defend both sides of your body as effectively. While you face the opponent in front of you, the one from behind has many more options available to him. Where both a fighter and a rogue see someone's back, one might try to just strike you with a sword, where the other might try to unbalance you with a kick. Both the fighter and rogue are trying to penetrate the foes armor and kill him, it is just different methods.

I digress on the other issues.

Also to add to death attack and Called Shot is Crippling strike. It has been mentioned that death attack is using pain to disable someone to being unable to move. I think this could be on par with crippling strike though.

Since death attack can only be used in the stealth round with a melee weapon (as from PnP PHB) I look at it as either the victim being struck is hit somewhere in the spine/head as to disable them. Also in PnP, the death attack can be used to kill outright, I look at this as just slitting someone's throat.

EDIT: I also have invited Laurk into this conversation since I said that I didn't think this was . There is a feat for ... but it is utterly terrible. I guess between him and I will be our definition of dirty

[Munroe]

I always thought of Crippling Strike as slashing directly at someone's muscle or tendon. It doesn't necessarily cause more pain but makes the target unable to use his/her muscles effectively. When it comes right down to it, all successful attacks with a bladed weapon cause pain. Because Crippling Strike is an upgrade to the normal Sneak Attack, my general thoughts on it fall into how I interpret Sneak Attack.

The general principle of a sneak attack is that the rogue is able to place his attack better without having to worry about someone attacking him, that's why he does extra damage from stealth, while flanking, while the enemy is prone, and while the enemy is flat-footed. The target enemy is not attacking him so, because of training in his class, he is able to place his attacks more efficiently than were he under attack by that enemy. Sneak Attack is a special kind of Critical Hit and as such, it should appear no differently from a critical hit in combat.

Death Attack is only ever actually a Death Attack on the very first round of combat as once the enemy is engaged, Death Attack behaves exactly like Sneak Attack.

That having been said, the cheesiest way to get Sneak Attack ever is a Sneak Attack on a Cleave, since the Cleave attack is the follow-through from attacking someone else.

[Quadhund/Greenhouse]

wolfmunroe said:

I always thought of Crippling Strike as slashing directly at someone's muscle or tendon. It doesn't necessarily cause more pain but makes the target unable to use his/her muscles effectively. When it comes right down to it, all successful attacks with a bladed weapon cause pain. Because Crippling Strike is an upgrade to the normal Sneak Attack, my general thoughts on it fall into how I interpret Sneak Attack.

Ahh but you can perform a crippling strike with blunt weapons too My statement was more to suggest that a death attack does not necessarily paralyze people from pain.

[Helgrin Granitesoul]

There are are many different nerve plexus areas in the human body where the concentration of nerves can make for a blow that if delivered correctly by someone with the knowledge can pretty much make you collapse. Is it painful.. no idea. But it sure can put someone down in an instant if delivered correctly. Just a good blow to the solar plexus can have the effect of knocking the wind out of someone and in effect making them helpless for a few moments. Another is the bundle of nerves in your armpit. The art of Ni-jit-su is especially dedicated to the understanding of these points of weakness in the human body and on how to strike them to instantly disable an opponent.


I like to think of crippling strike and death attack as the person initiating this type of attack has an intimate knowledge of these types of vulnerable points and understands that direct attacks made against these areas can disable a opponent.

Is that inherently evil... no. You just know the weak points of your foes and are especially good at making use of them. Now if the person that did it started to giggle and boast about the pain that they just inflicted I would start to wonder about that person and I would probably start investigating whether or not they might be a wolf in sheeps clothing. But an attack that kills in one blow. Never. I look at that warrior and say "Damn.. ya be skilled ya is" and buy them a drink since they just saved me from swinging my axe another time.

I for one total ignore the little floaties that come up during combat. If I didn't I would never travel with a certain pirate*cough*. Did I say that.. I meant a certain wonderful sea captain that is above reproach.

[ShadowCatJen]

On principal I think it's best to generally ignore the floating indicators. As Helgrin put it, it's how they react to the damage they inflict that should tell someone if they are an evil sort.

Let's put it this way, a paladin may have upright morals and a code of ethics, but even they know that battle can and will be quite ugly. They should also know that not everyone can fight in the same manner they can with full armor and a longsword and/or shield. Some need to rely on stealth, quickness, and keen hits to vital areas in order kill a foe and survive the battle. Sneak attacks and death attacks are just that. An opportunistic fighter is not an evil fighter.

Now, take the moments after battle where the Kelemvorite paladin takes a moment to pray over the fallen while the shady rogue complains about waisting time over a bunch of worm meal. That is the way you can tell if your paladin is going to like or suspect the other character's sense of moral standards. Not because of a set of floating words that appear above them due to mechanics.

And, as been stated in many examples, there are quite a few different ways the attacks can be interpreted. I'll add another example.

My character Mynian has rogue levels, though it's mostly to reflect the fact that she has a lot of mercantile skills (Craft Armor, Appraise, ect). She isn't that much of a melee fighter as it's something she generally avoids. However, when she does go toe to toe she has to fight a bit dirty. If she can hit the enemy while they are distracted then she'll take that opportunity and hit them, causing more damage then normal. It isn't because she's evil, it's because she likes to live and is willing physically stab someone in the back if it means she'll survive. This is the way I generally treat her Sneak Attack skills in game.

And one of the few times I pay attention to the mechanics of things:

When I see my character or another do a critical hit or the damage number that floats up makes me say "whoa!" then I'll have my character make some comment about turning her head away as the enemies head and arm gets clean lopped off. Or that the arrow she shoots goes in through one ear and clear out the other. Something to that effect, but never that it's indicated to me that the other character is a mean, brutal, and immoral person.

[Hackmaster]

I could be wrong about Attack of Opporunity, but with Kah'ruzah I get a sneak attack after every potion drunk by someone, I have also experienced this with knockdown attempts that fail. These all provoke attacks of Opportunity and unless the game engine is wrong it's giving me sneak attacks. Also in the theif class Rogue special feats include one that is Opportunist this feat gives a +4 to hit on any attack of opportunity for the Theif. Again though maybe I just am confusing this with something else, I been known to that. ;D

[Quadhund/Greenhouse]

You should get a sneak attack when some drinks a potion, because drinking a potion in combat makes you flatfooted. But say you engage with someone who is using a ranged weapon in combat, when you get an AoO against them for that purpose, it will not be a sneak attack.

Not sure what you mean by knockdown attempts that fail. I have never seen an AoO pop up for when someone fails a knockdown attempt. However, if you are knocked down, you are considered prone and will be sneak attacked.

[Hackmaster]

Ok, let me try to put it this way. If you drink a potion during combat any of your opponents in melee combat with you automatically get an AoO and it floats above their heads to prove this. Just drink a potion in combat with others fighting you in melee it will say AoO to the ones next to you every time you drink a potion. They are not flat footed nobody gets a AoO just cause the guy has not got to attack yet at the beginning of a fight but they will get sneak attacked if you have the ability weather next to the flat footed person or at range within a certain distance of the flat footed person.

Yes ranged opponents will not get this sneak attack while one is drinking a potion but that proves they are not flat footed at the time because a flat footed opponent who gets shot at gets sneak attacked but one drinking a potion does not go flat footed thus does not get sneak attacked while doing this.

Flat Footed happens most commonly when combat first starts. Initiative is rolled and then you await your turn to strike. All those attacking you before your first strike is attacking you with sneak attack if they have the ability. After you get your first attack from that point on you are no longer flat footed unless combat stops and starts again. At least for the most part stunned, prone, and paralyzed also counts as flat footed until you get to attack again. In those cases you can sneak attack the poor sod to death. ;D

Again maybe I am off the mark but this is how I have observed it and read it. Makes me want to test it all more extensively if I was not so lazy

[marklar]

i believe an AoO only occurs with disarm, i have never seen an AoO for knowckdowns

[Driderman]

No Attack of Opportunity for Knockdown, but there is for Disarm.

[Panros]

Sweet jeebuz all of this hussy over a sneak/death/crippling/called attack/shot/strike and Pally/Samurai Good/Bad Attack goodness.

On sneak attacks:

If the opponent doesn't expect it, it's a sneak attack. Think about it. When you know a blow is coming you tense up or roll with it whatever. Things hurt a lot more when you don't see them coming. Like that fight with your girlfriend, but I digress. Whether it be a shot to the groin, a finger in the eye, or stab in the back, or just a full on "hey you turned around and just now saw me so I just smacked you in the face before you could defend yourself" cheap shot kinda thing.

On Death Attack:

Your sneak up on them and render them immobile whether it be you stabbed them in that tendon or you just plain left them helpless in thought having them consider how much it's gonna suck to die knowing you didn't see that attack coming. I mean, you ever see somewhat get hit from behind, that slap on the back gets you all tensed up up on your tippy toes for a few moments. Or that shot to the groin has you bending over panting for five minutes. I'd like to say a Death Attack is a really, really, really, good sneak attack. Kudos for pulling it off.

On Crippling Strike:

You get hit in the head with a baseball bat and you just stand there wondering where you are at. Now imagine the bat as someones fists.

Called Shot:

Along the same lines as Crippling Strike except its to the leg or arms. You know a Charlie Horse, or Dead Arm. Same crud like that.

On Sneak Attack and Honor:

It ain't dishonorable to use what you are good at. Shoot, when is the last time you seen a Axe Wielding Warrior kill someone PvP with a bow. Or a freaking Magic Missile. Man, if the only way I can kill you is to sneak up on you and cut your throat I'm gonna do it. Shouldn't have made fun of my red hair anyway.

On Paladins and Samurais:

Samurais would so kick a Paladins rear it ain't even funny. Sure they may both be bound to "lords." But a Paladin is rendered useless, or should be, if he steps out of line. At least a Samurai has all of his awesome training. Heal this wound Pally!

On Evil Attacks:

Smite Evil is an evil attack. Why is a level 6 Paladin killing a something that I'm having trouble with? And I'm level 12! And for crying out loud it's a fight to the death. Shoot, philosophically wise every attack is evil. So contemplate that Pallies! (I know I spelled it differently from above.)

I don't want to hear any more complaining. Tell Kah that he did a flipping amazing job offing that halforc while he was distracted. And if anyone gives him lip have him off them.

Anyone else got anything to say about something? *pulls out the Mace of Ignoring*